soundings issue 12 summer 1999
Ein ding ist ein
A (philosophical) platform for a left (European) party
Bruno Latour argues for a major revision of left thinking.
The Fall of the Berlin Wall was supposed to render us all intelligent. Deprived of one arch-enemy, political reflection too could enjoy the 'benefits of peace' and stop making arguments, no matter how stupid, simply because they were expedient weapons during the Cold War. The forecast was that, in a more peaceful time, we should have become able to examine more quietly the inner quality of all these political philosophies the Left and the Right had thrown at each other for decades. The disarmament of arguments should have quickly followed the disarmament of weapons: swords should have become ploughshares. Alas, in reading the prose of the present European leaders on the Left, exactly the opposite happens. Instead of the large diversity that was expected from more peaceful times, everyone of them speaks exactly in the same way as if we were still at war. 'Globalisation', 'freedom for the markets', 'deregulation', 'flexibility', 'information technology', they all say the same thing, without forgetting the new catchword: 'innovation'. After the Fall of the Wall, everything happened as if the Left parties alone had disarmed; as if they had been unable to profit from the changes of epoch to articulate in their own terms their issues and predicaments. Their discourse is that of their enemies, plus or minus a few
Ein cling ist ein thing
changes. but it does not go from slavery to freedom any longer: it goes from entanglement to more entanglement. Maybe we have entered a different time than that of modernisation. hypermodernity. less impediments. with the arrow of time breaking free from the shackles of archaism to deliver us into an emancipated future. the Left. the future will be even more entangled than the past. It is time for a left party to engender a new difference with the Right on the way time
. was associated with a thrust forward. They are all vying for modernising the modernisation. It will be. that whatever topic we choose to focus on. No wonder that their voters have some difficulty in telling their Left apart from their Right and that they choose leaders by how youthful they look. this is clearly wrong. The problem is that times have changed so much that their ways of changing have themselves changed. and the left parties cannot ignore it by trying to beat the Right at the great tales of Progress by simply pushing forward the youthfulness of their leaders as if the dispute was to decide who should modernise the modernisation faster. journalists and thinkers alike under the vague and various words of postmodernity. To be sure. Whatever the words. it still goes forward. as if more modernisation was still the order of the day. something essential has happened in the way time flows. more freedom in the future than in the past. reflexive modernity. If by the thrust forward is meant the idea that the future will be less entangled. less implicated than the past. I am afraid. with the great tale of Progress. The only thing we can be sure of is. Plank 1: should we modernise the modernisation? I am not sure a left party should advocate modernisation at all costs. I propose to reap the benefits of peace by reexamining some of the assumptions of the past fight between Left and Right. Only the Right can believe in a tale of Progress that means less regulation. and by offering a very short ten point platform for reinventing another difference between Left and Right. and each argument will be simply sketched in order to keep within the time allotted to me. In the note below. a very philosophical platform. A left party would be well advised to come to grips politically with what has been captured by philosophers. a difference that will not inherit from the now defunct ones devised in the course of this century of Cold Wars. in the grandiose scenography of the past. on the contrary. less complex. There is still an arrow of time. from ecology to genetics. from ethics to law.
at their own expense. the problems and retrofits. as if modernity was still the order of the day. I am not sure a left party should have the United States' worries as its one and only horizon. too isolated. disinvent it. the quest for emancipation might no longer he the slogan of the Left. the new devices that will make the product better. between the future of the US and that of Europe. to be interested in the specific European problems of remaking modernity. A left party should produce a new difference. at the end of this century. it is just the time not to believe that the future and the past of the United States are the future and the past of Europe. When manufacturers realise that one of their products leaves something to be desired. Plank 2: a special responsibility of Europe Europe invented modernity. The United States is too powerful. especially a different way to tackle again the huge labour of universalising the world (see plank 5). I believe that Europeans have to 'recall' modernity in order to turn it into a different project.the neo-liberal one at least . to disinvent it and deeply to modify its legacy. Actually. only the Left could imagine a European future.can only imagine a universalist future. the Right .Soundings flows and what the future will oiler in terms of freedom and entanglement. they do what is named a 'recall' of their products to fix. that is.
Plank 3: from successions to coexistence I have the feeling that we are slowly shifting from an obsession with time to an obsession with space. and then. doing even more of the same. seeing reform as a disappointing and cowardly way of missing the
. Now the occasion arises to decide collectively what it is to be European: it is to have inherited the formidable project of modernisation and universalisation. To sum it up in one more provocative way. since it has associated so much of its energy and so many of its arguments around the notion of revolution. in effect. that is. an American one. too insular in a way. Just at the moments when there is much talk on the topic of globalisation. to realise that something different is needed. This task will not be done by the United States which go on endlessly on the road of Progress. This is especially important for a left party. utterly unrelated to the Cold War. No one seems to know exactly what it is to be European. so to speak. and still ignoring the consequence of their action. it has a special responsibility to.
and entering a very different time/space. from the old Ultra-Left. During the Cold Wars. the only difference the Left could enforce with the Right was that of being 'for' revolutions. times. The Left should be able to say 'the time of revolutionary times has ended'. like that of the end of modernisation. time is defined as the 'series of succession' and space as the 'series of simultaneity'. Some people have argued that the Fall of the Wall marked the 'end of history'. epochs and entities. The key problem for a left party is no longer to 'make the revolution'.successions and revolutions . that of coexistence. but if it means the end of an irreversible succession of epochs. and always agitating its red flags of total upheaval. To the now empty dreams of revolutions. each of them replacing the previous one and being replaced by the next through a sudden and radical revolution that leaves nothing but a blank slate. This is precisely what the Right is unable to do . but to explore coexistence between totally heterogeneous forms of people. cultures.now associated with the neo-liberal Right .even when it claims to be reactionary . It is as if the Left had a duty of becoming 'reactionary' vis a vis these new Levellers who claim to prolong the continuous revolutions of the past. The 'Ultras' are simply other types of reactionary revolutionaries. once and for all. this 'end of history'. of heterogeneous entities no one can either simplify nor eliminate for good. that is of rendering coexistence possible on an Earth that no revolution can simplify any longer.
Plank 4: learning to live in a time of scientific controversies A left party. The new difference that could be elicited would be between an obsession with radical changes that eliminate the past for ever . If.since it goes on endlessly into a great narrative of revolutionary times . Such a new distinction would also provide a clear-cut way for the new Left to distinguish itself.and the new obligations of coexistence (that is the production of space). as philosophers argue.technical and economical upheavals .Ein ding isl em thing
call for revolution. we might be leaving the time of time . If this means the end of events in history. might be a profound insight. it seems to me. a left party would be faced with a completely unexpected (and truly 'revolutionary'!) task. nor even to substitute slow reforms for radical revolutions. always lingering in the rear-vanguard of political action. There is no longer any Left left of the Left. this is plainly ridiculous. is on the side of complication against the beautiful
.without being able to absorb the new obligations of coexistence. or what coexists together at one instant.
by letting the Right go on in the traditional . Instead of extinguishing the political fires.Soundings
simplification. would ensue. the Left could revive this progressive call for action by chanting: 'No innovation without representation'. In the recent past. The more science and the more technology was thrown in. unintended effects) feed back into the very definition of the objects. When I use the words Science and Technology. but simply this small and radical change that everyone can read about in the newspapers: science and technology add their uncertainties to the older ones. We are witnessing. so to speak. The Left knows fairly well how to expect more certainty from Science. to those who want to shortcut due process by kidnapping science and technology. I do not refer to what scientists and
engineers and the rest of the collective do in laboratories but to the very specific politics of shortcutting politics invented by the West under the name of epistemology or philosophy of science. that is in the times of modernisation. more acceleration of technology without discussion.call for more scientism. The Left should render life miserable to the simplifiers. It is at this juncture that a left party could create a major new difference from the Right. the speedy shortcuts of the Right.and now deeply reactionary . The completely unexpected feature for the Left is that science and technology do not simplify the discussions about objects any longer. This creates an immense problem for the renewal of the Left because it has associated itself so much with science and technology. but it has not learned yet how to thrive politically on scientific and technical controversies that it would much prefer to paper over.
1. less regulation. because whatever we do we are expecting unexpected consequences. The time is gone when Science could be used to simplify the components of social order. they add fuel to the political. This is why people like Ulrich Beck speak of 'risk society'. the revolt of the means. simplification was the order of the day. they do not subtract any. to bypass politics. one most efficient solution. There was one best way. These many consequences (risks. means for ends. objects could be produced which had no unexpected consequences and that could replace older objects for good. one economic optimum. less controversies. We are entering an entirely different playing field. It does not mean a catastrophic version of society where the distribution of 'bads' will have replaced the distribution of 'goods'. so the idea went. 16
.1 As in earlier times the mobilising slogan has been: 'No taxation without representation'. the less disputes. ethical and ecological controversies.
blood and even genes. In addition. in effect. As many anthropologists have shown. we are not entering a new globalised world characterised by the disappearances of cultures. and by comparison the 'local' was defined as exotic. especially because. But the two terms of that opposition between nature . Americanisation.and cultures . in addition. We in Europe have invented. help Europe rework what it meant in the
2.2 Exactly the opposite is happening. archaic and on a quick path to extinction. the neoformation of many new cultures that subvert the very definition of what it is to be local and what it is to be global. is being split according to the now obsolete division between universality and locality: on the one hand. Minneapolis 1996. the Right itself. Appadurai. as has often been shown. just at the time when the connections between local and global are utterly subverted by the rest of the planet. It would be a great pity if the Left. new ways to make their difference heard and respected. everywhere in the world. all around the world. in reaction to the first. 17
.in the plural .are being modified at once: the types of universalisation allowed by networks of scientific practices have lost the ability to render the other merely local by comparison. one idea of universality based on a certain version of a few peculiar sciences. odd. that is. this would be a major political mistake. capitalises on the neoformation of cultures. This new 'globalisation of differences' (Appadurai) is exactly the opposite of the catastrophic scattering of incommensurable view points expected from the breaking up of modernisation. a second Right. was finally embracing the repetitive mantra of globalisation and the 'new world order'.in the singular . Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. at some point. on the other hand. especially through the new media of communications. and invents new ethnic localities. established on soil. To the unity of global nature was opposed the multiplicity of local cultures.Ein ding ist ein thing
Plank 5: globalisation is not the order of the day I am convinced that a re-established left party should be extremely careful with this term globalisation that has become the new catchword. If there is one feature that could redifferentiate the Left from the two opposing Rights. and the former 'locals' have invented. University of
Minnesota Press. it would be the exploration of the new connections between locality and globality that would. that is. a neo-liberal Right that embraces globalisation. This is what happened when we were aiming at modernising the planet. A.
simply because it is not connected in any way to what was expected from its ancestors. it begot this monstrous beast that is responsible for so much misery: a scientific politics. so to speak. in my view. The Left.capital S . but not easier. to summarise. The blood shed by this deadly association between science and politics is still on the hands of many people in the Left today. if only we redirected our attention to the new events. would foolishly reject in disdain the brand new heritage that falls on it by happenstance. a new Europe shows a much more interesting type of future than the mere extension of America to the whole planet (plank 2). for more than a hundred years. Instead of criticising and undoing this definition of science invented by its enemies. It has thus embraced without qualms this fabulous power: indisputable laws of society and economics. with an epistemology unrelated to the real practice of the sciences that allows one to shortcut the political process. This is the historical change that should be seized on. to show that after the Wall has fallen. The five next planks are more substantial. In spite of all the crimes committed by this idea that a science of society and a science of history could allow one to bypass due process. as so often happens in genetics. No one else but the European Left will find that task so urgent. It is extremely difficult to summarise them better in such a short time. These five first planks together define less a framework than a decor. discover that one inherits quite different traits from them. In that respect. I hope. Sometimes one can change ancestors or. there still exist social scientists who believe
. and even laws of history.Soundings
past by modernisation and universality. should not be like a disappointed heir who. Plank 6: one viable political order or two unviable ones The Left has always had bad relations with Science . has attempted to kidnap it for its own use.that is. after inheriting from the broken past of Cold Wars. for the tiny platform on which I try to stand. Sometimes it is difficult to detect what is contemporary. They are just enough. and this fabulous entanglement of various contradictory universalities it finds itself built in and entangled with. given the extraordinary diversity of Europe. I am afraid. the Left. many chances to redifferentiate Left from Right have been missed that could be seized now. Armed with this power that was not congenial to its real ancestry.
a bit of neo-darwinism. Fortunately. Thing/Ding. to build one due process where the questions of what ties all of us together. with only one attractor. calling themselves the Greens. that is said not to do politics but which takes all of the important decisions. the second. here again. because of the crimes committed under the name of a Science of the laws of history. what counts and what does not count. Ding and Thing. is not viable and has produced a great many of the catastrophes of our age. is new but is to be experimented if we want to imagine a viable Body Politic. while the Greens still use the good old modernist twoattractor Body Politic. with. called Politics. two attractors. that is said to make the decisions but that is left with nothing but passions and interests? Or do you want. to let science and technology be submitted or coterminous with due process. The question has now become simple enough: do you want to build a political order with two chambers. that explains everything else provided the incontrovertible results of a tew other sciences are thrown in as well . things and people. They want to save nature as a weapon against politics. could tell apart the Left from the Green: the Left lives under one political process of people and things. now the situation has changed so much in the practice of science (plank 4). a few results of cognitive sciences (no matter if the real scientific disciplines that deal with life and brain offer totally different pictures). the Left wants to save politics. economics. from nature. and the other. are trying. who is important and who is not important in the great chain of beings. that the idea of a Science bypassing due process has changed camp entirely. some 'eugenics'. It is now the Right which believes it has the right to shortcut political process because it benefits from the indisputable laws of one science. Because of its calamitous association with Science capital S. This shift in the appeal to Science is a great chance for the Left to elicit a new difference from the Right. This is especially important to fight those who. is explicitly tackled as politics? The first political order. the Left has a special responsibility if it wishes to exist again and anew and to redifferentiate itself from the Right. to reinvent one more avatar of the nightmarish scientific politic and who claim that they know. so to speak. A new shibboleth. A new left party should
. because of their Science and not because of due process. on the contrary. in the name of ecology. so to speak. the first one called Science capital S.Ein ding ist ein thing
they finally have gained the right to produce the ultimate scientific politics through the accumulation of enough 'symbolic capital'. instead of being what bypasses the production of political order.
and also to distinguish itself from the Greens with their dual collectives of nature and society. animals and things are engaged. in which no shortcut is possible. to decide how many entities are going to coexist. the Left does not have to embrace uncritically the call for industrialisation. the possibility of bypassing due process by appealing to incontrovertible laws. It is now the idea of collective experiments in which billions of people. but the obscurity to be enlightened has changed shape. This has entirely modified the relations of the public with the producers of science and technology. it has everything to gain in registering a difference between Science and Research. and wherein there is no protocol. To be true to its glorious past of fighting on the side of Aufklarung. etc. to an association with Research. We have to reorganise our polity accordingly. their development and innovations. In other words. 10 April 1998. All of us have become parties in collective experiments on global warming. See a paper by the same author in Science. that is no procedure to detect what has been learned and to decide what to do next. pollution. namely science policy. was the calling of very few specialists. until recently. 20
.4 Given its past and the importance of science and technology. no monitoring. no debriefing. and no due process. the influence of genetic engineering. the Lett has been associated with Science . no feedback loops. but no longer with their politics of shortcutting politics. If it wishes to fight obscurantism it can still do so. no archives.
3. Everyone now is led to practise science policy over a vast range of scientific and technical controversies. etc. the Left will have to wean itselt from the secondary advantages that Science capital S give to its programme. By moving from an association with Science. the Left should be strongly associated with the sciences and engineering.but nor yet with Research. modernisation. This has become impossible if the Left defines itself as what monitors a collective experiment.and with catastrophic consequences . demography. We thus all have to practise something which. hut to undo the double-hind that renders Green politics so inefficient. Plank 7: collective experiment It the Lett wishes to create a new difference between itself and the two Rights the globalising right and the ethnicising Right . conservations of species.Soundings be able to take up all of the issues put forward so diligently by the Greens.
But it has always been dramatically uninterested in the much more important task of collectively appropriating calculation. since. that is.
. A double shortcut of the two hard travails of description . that is of this extraordinary power to bypass political process in order to define better and faster the Optimum. for the new Left. economics. the Left has the extraordinary opportunity to establish the first 'non-Marxist party' in the history of the West. I would he tempted to define political economy as what allows one to 'economise' politics. by the goal of 'appropriating the means of production'.and prescription . It is quite stunning to realise that alter 1 50 years of left politics. or instead of dreaming of substituting a more scientific 'proletarian' economics for the 'bourgeois' one. hut. a leftist science of economics is exactly as detrimental as a rightist science of economics. literally. Instead of embracing mainstream economics. and still is.Ein ding ist ein thing
Plank 8: the collective appropriation of economic calculus A different conception of science means. no matter in which unit of account one does the calculation. If.necessary for a legitimate ethics: that is indeed worth a careful critique. by economics we mean this hardest of all social sciences which succeeds in the extraordinary double feat of being at once a descriptive Science without describing what it is that people practically do when being entangled with goods. a different conception of economics. In other words. and of being a prescriptive Science without paying the price of consulting all of those who are concerned in the calculation of the optimum. even when it dreams of reinventing itself. especially from the Marxist Left and former Ultra-Left. the critique of political economy has always been done in the name of Science. first of all. There is no way to shortcut the slow and painful composition of the whole collective simply by reading bottomlines on spreadsheets. to save the social scientists from the incredible burden of producing collectively the calculation of the optimum. their goals have always been to substitute' a more scientific economic theory for the ideologically tainted ones.necessary for a legitimate science . The Left has been obsessed. To he sure. holds the laws of history and society. to shortcut its specific task. This is a great pity. Political economics is the economy of politics. with the remarkahle exception of Karl Polanyi. that is the first party which does not believe in the slogan that one Science. political economy is still unexamined and uncriticised. that is. there have been many critiques of political economy.
'we do not have to deal with all of these other people. all of these needless entanglements'. The limit of capitalism as a mode of calculation . not in fighting capitalism as if it were a mode of production to which there was one and only one alternative (for instance another system of production).externalities. Calculations allowed the shortcutting of politics by ignoring all of the externalities that lie outside of the realm of what is to be calculated. as that which can extract itself from entanglement and allow someone to say confidently:' we are quit'. in this view.without the formatting of all interactions into those two parts. of facts and values .not as a mode of production is that it renders itself voluntarily very inefficient at calculating what it has left aside: unintended consequences. it is that of reintroducing a new difference from the Right by insisting on finding a successor to economics as a way of organising the polity. construed as this double bypass of description and prescription. but to ask the question again: is there a successor to economics. due process.is not to be left to the Right using economics to shortcut description and prescription. that is in not accepting that this strange double bypass invented in the eighteenth century to settle political order is the final word on what binds people and things together. externalities. If there is one subject on which the Left may be true to its radicalness or cease to exist. but in not pursuing economics at all. Capitalism itself.and what is not to be calculated .of which accounting and economics themselves are an integral part . entanglement. Without the enormous task of limiting calculation .this old definition of politics and economics . Actually. neither appropriation nor capitalisation would be possible. values in the name of facts? I would be tempted to say that we might be shifting slowly from an ideal of calculability to a new idea of descriptibility. but could be the object of a new political process that will sacrifice neither the task of description nor that of prescription. The master Science of modernisation cannot be master in the new times that succeed modernisation. or for the Good Life .Soundings
Plank 9: from calculability to descriptibility The task for the Left is no longer to base itself on an alternative economics. The search for the optimum.facts in the name of values.
. The Left has thus an extraordinary opportunity. what is and what is not calculable.internalities . is one among many of the powerful ways of distributing what is to be calculated . Instead of pursuing the vain hope of being agnostic in matters of theology. this is the only way to define itself as capitalism. the Left might be well advised to begin at last to be agnostic in matters of economics.
leaders of the left parties are often trying to show that they can beat the Right at the game of dismantling the state faster than their competitors . a strong state is indeed necessary. Yes. meaning the forces of description and calculation. The Left should use another touchstone to decide which mode of organisation to use in specific cases: which one increases the ability to describe and to prescribe in the collective search for the optimum. A new divide ensues between the Old and the New Left around the strange question of knowing if one should dismantle the state entirely or keep it as a buffer against the tides of globalisation. then let's choose it: if. For those procedures to be in place so as to be able to choose collectively which mode of organisation is better. the remnants of the various old Lefts. this is a caricature of a political debate. the Left can be true to its urge to 'unleash the forces of production'.. for or against the market. networks and institutions are ways of organising the types of attachments that people and things have with one another. then let's go to it. To be for or against the state. on the other hand. Strange situation indeed that is inherited again from the various Cold Wars of this century.Ein ding ist ein thing What entangles people and things is still a complete mystery which the illusory mastery of political economy cannot even begin to fathom. obsessed by which one of these means of organisation increases the collective appropriation of the modes of calculating the optimum. are rallying to maintain what remains of former strong states that have been devised during the modern times. If an institution allows us to go from ten powerful calculators to a thousand. For the new Left to be invented. but that is not a state that substitutes for the ability of civil society
. that is unleashing the forces of democracy. To rejuvenate themselves. a pocket of market allows us to go from ten powerful shortcutters in the administration to a million consumers. the Left should show its flexibility. on the contrary.. by being indifferent to the nature of the organisations chosen. The Left should be entirely agnostic vis a vis those forms and it should leave to the Right the extravagant commitment to one at the price of the exclusion of all the others. in order to fight the cruelty of markets. Yes. There is no a priori privilege of one form of organisation over the other. At least this is the sort of empty question from which the Fall of the Wall should have freed us. is no longer the criterion for deciding if a party is left or right. Plank 10: a strong state Everywhere in Europe. But it should be. Markets.
In spite of the Cold civil Wits that took up so much energy. Only a strong state can make sure that the two Rights. it has to be produced.Soundings to calculate and to reach the optimum. organise the collective experiment in which we are all. that is to follow. things and people. on the call for emancipation in matters of personal mores. and. especially nor
. For the first time. I agree. on the infrastructural role of economy and on the continuous revolutions that would take place by irreversibly annihilating the past. from the burdensome task of substituting for the marker and for the networks.although none.
I have said enough to show what should have become visible after the Fall of the Wall: never was there so much difference between the Left and the Right. engaged. and it offers a unique occasion for Europe and for the Left to re-establish themselves with a new pride. document. experimented. There is an arrow of time. elicited. Only a strong state could make sure that the collective experimentation is not aborted or bypassed. together. emancipation. It can be summarised in a few words . I know that such a difference is not to be observed. on the thrust forward of the arrow of rime. on the role of Science capital S as being to bypass due process. Yes. there is energy to be unleashed. I have attempted to induce a new distinction between the Left and the Right. the ultra Left. This is a much better source of strength that the
dinosaurian tasks of the past which aimed to replace the whole of civil society by shortcutting description and calculation. freed. contrary to what those who regret the good time' of the Class Wars say. have any popular appeal: something else than modernisation is now at work in the world. induce. the Right and the Left can now part company on each of those items. T h e state. above all. the new state of the Left. but it leads to coexistence rather than revolutions. debrief. might no longer be the order of the day. the state should he freed. should be freed so as to concentrate on the only task no one else will do. there has always been a deep agreement between the various Rights and the various Lefts on the urge for modernisation. wittingly or unwittingly. In this brief paper. by their a priori Science of what binds all of us. on the inevitability of Progress. a much more radical one than simply vying for modernising the modernisation and pushing younget leaders to dismantle the welfare state faster. that is. offered. there is no way to shortcut political process any more. the Greens do not monopolise the collective calculations of the optimum. even in matters of personal life.
I am simply a practitioner of the social sciences and I simply think that they have always been associated in the past with a political project. there are two words that do not work: the word social and the word social! Social scientists. We are grateful to the Friedrich Ebert Foundation for allowing us to publish it here. have to learn from them what they do. In the expression 'social science'.]ohn Benjamins Publishing House. they took it upon themselves to act as legislators. number l/2. and that is what I called above. I represent nobody and have no authority whatsoever to present this ten-plank platform for a party. especially not social science. especially not economics. or better what Isabelle Stengers called 'cosmopolitics'. after the three English. what they say they do. a collective experiment. by unseen forces which only the social scientists could detect and document. Before we invent the right mix of science and politics.
. Atmerdam/New York 1998. American and French revolutions.Em ding ist ein thing
through Science. As Zygmunt Bauman has argued. The question is to decide if this association is productive or not. The English text was published for the first time in the journal Concepts and Transformation. without them knowing it. not the other way around. I believe that people know pretty much what they do and that I. and above all. in psychology. my slogan will simply be: let us shortcut the shortcutters and see what happens. have taken upon themselves. One last word on the author. I don't believe that the task of social scientists is to substitute for the people by inventing an already existing Whole which would act as the hidden infrastructure of all their actions. as a sociologist. to represent through their emerging sciences. maybe something like 'political research' is in order. the whole Society as one already organised Whole. Instead of the social sciences. Neither the sciences nor the collective production of what binds people and things together can be shortcut by a Science and by a Society capital S. Volume 3. in May 1998. This is what has given them the authority to speak in the name of the people who were manipulated. sociology and economics. A newassociation of the social sciences with politics would be possible if another definition of science and society was experimented with.
This article first appeared as a paper presented in Cologne to the fifth International Engineers' Conference of the Friedrich-Ehert Stiftung.